Time Zone Conversion Verified

In order to confirm or refute the claim that the BBC 24 video discussed the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened, I did a little research.

First, being an American who doesn't know much about UK time zones, I wanted to see what part of the United Kingdom BBC 24 actually broadcasts from. Answer: East London.

Second, given that London is in a different time zone from New York, and that daylight savings time may have effected both locations, or only one location, or neither location on 9/11, I wanted some definitive way to convert the timezones.

BBC News 24 on the TV displays UK time, including the changes for BST so when the screen showed 21.54, then it was 16.54 in New York."

I ran the conversion myself at Timezoneconverter.com, and confirmed that jonmardavid is right. Here are the screenshots confirming that 21.54 London time on 9/11 was 4:54 p.m. New York time:

Here's what the website looks like:

This confirms the data I entered:

Here's the result:

16:54 on a 24-hour clock is, of course, 4:54 p.m.

Of course, WTC 7 did not actually collapse until at least 5:20 p.m. New York time.

Thanks to jonmardavid, Reprehensor and 911Veritas for their research.

It should be noted that the BBC 24 tape still needs to be authenticated (although the BBC's head of news, Richard Porter, did appear to indicate that it was authentic). Reprehensor is working on this angle.

The other BBC tape has also not yet been authenticated. Specifically, the tape was originally downloaded from the Internet Archive. Janice Matthews of 911Truth.org corresponded with the Internet Archive (as did I), and the Archive stated that it could not authenticate the tapes. Below are Janice's and my correspondence.

So whistleblowers within BBC (and CNN) or people who recorded the broadcasts live on 9/11 should authenticate these tapes.

A certain video, found at your site, has been making its way around the Internet like wildfire today, finding itself the source of live radio discussions today, phone calls to the BBC and american media, and generally causing quite a stir, as well it should. 911Truth.org is very cautious in our reporting, however, and would like to verify as thoroughly as possible that this information is accurate. Therefore, we decided to go to the source and ask you directly about a couple of things. Thanks for your time in helping us with this.

The footage in question is at: http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg
It is footage from the BBC World, broadcast between 4:54 and 5:36 pm EDT on 9/11/01, apparently being taped live in New York City. A woman correspondent is reporting with what appears to be live footage of the Manhattan skyline behind her, including WTC Building 7 just to her right on the screen (over her left shoulder). Yet she is reporting in her broadcast, at approximately 5pm, with WTC7 behind her, that WTC7 has collapsed. (Of course, WTC7 actually collapsed at 5:20pm that day.) Naturally, this is rather confusing! Our first two questions are, obviously,
1) was the timestamp on the video accurate,
2) is the footage behind her real or greenscreen,
3) can this footage be verified as from the BBC or could it have been created by someone else, and
4) how can we reach "Television Archive" who is reported as being the original conributor?

We have reviewed the .xml files associated with this video, which appear to verify the validity of source of the footage is indeed BBC:

I am not able to view the video via the links in this file, however, and the associated "program file" and "thumbnails" are not available. We notice that this information was updated, at least the line re. "curator" on 2/18/07. Why is that? It appears this file was last modified February 18, 07. Can you tell us whether "curator" was the only modification then?

The second .xml file shows:

MPEG1
26f22c5525bdaeaeb51ebb84d227dc0f

XML
383d54ece897828ceace791b5a99e932

XML
4a0dbe0ebfc7528cf350182efda627ec

Can you help us translate? For instance, what does "source=metadata" mean?

Finally, I have been unable to download or view the stream on your site, as it "hangs" after an hour or so of downloading... Can you help me see the original footage you have posted?

Thank you for your help. We are prepared to present this information to high-level officials and news media once we can verify; I hope you understand the significance of this and why we are so intent on tracking it down. Please feel free to call me if you would prefer that to email.

Why is it that most (not all) of the BBC footage segments from that day do not have links to be able to view the streaming video? I'm not finding that to be the case with other networks on that day, nor for the BBC on other days...?

I'm wondering if someone credible uploaded them, or someone who is unknown to y'all.

I'm also wondering why the files were removed? If you are not at liberty to say, then I'll assume it was due to a national security letter.

Thanks for your help!

From: "Paul Forrest Hickman"
To: GeorgeWashington

Thank you for contacting us about this. The files that were pulled
were not designed for download, and were not available for that
purpose. We recently found out that someone has downloaded them.
They were in streaming format for a reason. Until we can figure out
the programming problems, we have to take the information off-line.

Our TV Archive is a project that is currently for testing purposes
only. We have pulled the footage because it was not yet ready for
public viewing.

I would like to obtain the original files that 911veritas used for his research, and host them on my own site http://agenda911.dk.
I also think that we should make those original files available through bittorrent and they should be announced on http://thepiratebay.org/ .

Maybe I just haven't been lucky and found the right information, but since the files have been removed from the archive.org, I don't know where to find them.

I assume that 911veritas has these files in his possession, so really this is a question to him (you) but unfortunately he does not allow direct contact through his profile here on 911blogger.

How can I obtain these files?

When and if I get them, i will bittorrent them if they aren't already.
(And upload them to my site, for everyone to download. [Yes I have loads of bandwidth])

That one was the only concrete trail I found, but it doesn't work for me.
I also cannot download a file with Alex Jones, but I can download this one:http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/stats.html?info_hash=b74abd82c7ad5db91...
(though I have no interest in that particular file)
So there seems to be something flaky about the conspiracycentral?
Also I would like a somewhat more granular access to the material, really for now, I'm only interested in the material that pertains to this BBC case.

So I'm still looking for something like just the one 1 Giga file of the BBC 'error'.

Last Tuesday I was looking at the archived films at the adress above and as I have used Internet Achive enormously since 2001 with out a single document disappearing I did not think it necessary to do copie files. The next day I realised that these films could be too important and decided to make backup copies. Unfortunately it was no longer possible and I got this message ( I can not paste it here so if you want a copy email me mouv4x8@club-internet.fr)

It is now 11:55 A.M. PST. This story was first posted
23 hours and 26 minutes ago. It was made popular 22
hours and 1 minute ago. At the time I am sending this
email it currently has 1,364 Digg's. Despite the fact
that it has this number it is not listed under ANY of
your top story lists. It appears as though it is
listed under both "World and Business" and "Political
News". It is not in the top 10 listing of either of
these sections nor the "All Stories" category. When I
check all three of these categories under the top
stories of the last 24 hours, I see that it is absent.
According to the stories that I see in these sections
and the number of "Digg's" attached to them, it
clearly should be listed in the top ten of all three
of these categories.

This information clearly exposes your company as being
deceptive and a practitioner of censorship. I would
appreciate a prompt response clarifying your reason
for doing this.

Why was this story reported as "lame"? It has a high
number of Digg's. 1,364 Digg's at the time of my
e-mail. Does this not indicate that a large number of
people do not consider this story to be "lame"? All
this shows is that your site is a deceptive farce and
you practice censorship. Do you not find the fact that
the BBC was reporting the collapse of WTC-7 as having
already occurred while it is still standing behind the
very reporting who is saying this the least bit
newsworthy? She was reporting this a full twenty
minutes before it occurred!

On the Digg website it states that you practice "Media
Democracy". This obviously is an outright lie. This
exposes your company as a fraud. Digg has no
credibility.

This is just how the system works. This is
crowd-generated media.
There was a high number of diggs with very low karma
and a high number of buries from users with very high
karma. There is no conspiracy, there is no abuse, the
buries happened from veteran users on digg with proven
track records.

We do understand your concerns, however. In the
future we may include a feature that allows users to
view buried stories and vote to re-instate them. But
we do not manually re-instate stories as that
undermines the decisions of the digg community.
Sometimes good stories get buried and bad stories get
promoted. This is what happens with user-controlled
content. But it's also what sets us apart from the
pack, the users decide the relevance of stories, not
gatekeepers.

It is now 12:39 P.M. PST. the original story now
has1,385 Digg's. This is produced by user's digging it
and users burying it. Is this not how it works for all
of the news items you have on your site? How and why
is this any different? The fact that it has 1,385
Digg's means it should be a top story despite what
your ridiculous excuse is. In the how it works section
Digg does not mention the method that your have just
explained to me. Digg has been exposed as a fraud.

You do realize that even while stories are buried the
direct link stays active, right? I'm telling you the
specific reasons WHY and HOW the story were buried.
USERS bury stories. And how they we able to bury a
story with a high amount of diggs is because the
diggers had low karma while the buries had very high
karma.

"....And how they we able to bury a story with a high
amount of diggs is because the diggers had low karma
while the buries had very high karma."

This is what is says on "How Digg Works

(copied and pasted from the Digg website)

How Digg Works

Digg is a digital media democracy. As a user, you
participate in determining all site content by
discovering, selecting, sharing, and discussing the
news, videos, and podcasts that appeal to you.

Discover
Discover media online. Find an article, video, or
podcast online and submit it to Digg.com. Your
submission will immediately appear in “Upcoming
Stories,” where other members can find it and, if they
like it, Digg it.

Get popular. Once a submission has earned a critical
mass of Diggs, it becomes “popular” and jumps to the
homepage in its category. If it becomes one of the
most popular, it qualifies as a “Top 10” (If a
submission doesn’t receive enough Diggs within a
certain time period, it eventually falls out of the
“Upcoming” section.)

Discover media on Digg. Visit the “Upcoming” section
to discover recently added news, videos, and podcasts.
Track submissions as they come in with Swarm or Stack,
our realtime Flash visualization tools. Or use Spy to
watch the titles and descriptions as they roll down
the page.

Of course, you can always check the topic homepages to
see what’s newly popular. And you can subscribe to RSS
feeds of particular topics, popular/upcoming sections,
individual users, and the search terms of your choice.

Select
Digg. Participate in the collaborative editorial
process by Digging the stuff that you like best. As
you Digg, you contribute to the count on any given
item. You also build a profile of Diggs that your
friends can view.

Bury. If you find stories with bad links, off-topic
content, or duplicate entries, click “Bury.” That’s
how we get the spam out of the system.

Share
Email your friends (Diggers or non-Diggers) when you
find something you Digg.

Build a friend list; then your friends can track what
you’re Digging. They can also subscribe to an RSS feed
of your submissions and/or your Diggs.

We definitely understand your concerns. We urge you to read the
programmer's website where he admits that the information is not 100%
accurate and ultimately states in a digg comment that 3 out of 4 times
the data is completely wrong:

We have also confirmed independently on each of these stories that the
data is more than 75% inaccurate. The sample size also only covers 2
hours with 1700 or so buries. That isn't enough. However, we do
understand your concerns and are looking into the issue. Thank you for
understanding.